Case 3308155/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sivaalingam v SME (PIZZA) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308155/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr I Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sivaalingam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, disability related discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability on the basis that they were not well-founded.
The Tribunal upheld the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint. It found that the respondent failed to pay the contractual amount of wages due for the two week period prior to 4 May 2023 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of disability related discrimination dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment wording states 'constructive unfair dismissal discrimination' and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages for the two week period prior to 4 May 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,342 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,342
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.